View Full Version : Sandy Berger to plead guilty
rubberneck
03-31-2005, 17:40
Berger to Plead Guilty to Taking Materials
21 minutes ago
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified material from the National Archives, a misdemeanor, the Justice Department said Thursday.
Berger is expected to appear in federal court in Washington on Friday, said Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra.
The former Clinton administration official previously acknowledged he removed from the National Archives copies of documents about the government's anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents. He said he was reviewing the materials to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
He called the episode "an honest mistake," and denied criminal wrongdoing.
Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, have said Berger knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants and inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio. He returned most of the documents, but some still are missing.
The charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.
The materials related to a 2000 report on how government reacted to the terror threat prior to the millennium celebrations.
Berger stepped down as an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign last July after The Associated Press reported that the Justice Department was investigating the matter.
Many Democrats, including former President Clinton, suggested politics were behind disclosure of the probe only days before the release of the Sept. 11 commission report, which Republicans feared would be a blow to President Bush's re-election campaign.
Radar Rider
03-31-2005, 17:57
The crookedness of the clinton administration continues. Berger pleads guilty but doesn't admit criminal wrongdoing. I'm surprised that they haven't "Fostered" him yet.
The crookedness of the clinton administration continues. Berger pleads guilty but doesn't admit criminal wrongdoing. I'm surprised that they haven't "Fostered" him yet.
He'll pull a Susan McD. and keep his mouth shut. "IF" he serves any time he'll come out and claim he was a target of the Vast Right Wing group the Clinton's love to talk about.
Pete
NousDefionsDoc
03-31-2005, 20:16
I wonder if he will do time in the calaboose? The hoosegow?
FREE MARTHA NOW!!!!
FREE MARTHA NOW!!!!
i don't know what you have, but i'm glad i ain't got it.... :D
Airbornelawyer
03-31-2005, 21:07
...John Kerry's erstwhile Secretary of State... "erstwhile" means "former"; I assume you meant presumptive or something along those lines.
Airbornelawyer
03-31-2005, 21:16
Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, have said Berger knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants and inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio. To revisit this, which was discussed before, this statement was his legal strategy.
Regarding the removal documents which were indisputably classified, knowledge or purpose is an element of the offense, hence the claim that those he "inadvertently took." Clinton's and others' statements that Sandy was just a slob was part of the strategy to make him out to be "merely" negligent.
He couldn't get around knowledge on the handwritten notes, because of the obvious effort he took to hide them, sticking them down his pants and all. So here, his lawyer argued that he didn't think those were classified.
Roguish Lawyer
03-31-2005, 21:27
Nice avatar, Dave. Care to explain?
NousDefionsDoc
04-01-2005, 01:21
I remember something like that from SOCNET. Something about "I have no freakin' idea what you are talking about, so here's a picture of a hamster with a pancake on his head."
Swindleous
04-01-2005, 02:30
I remember something like that from SOCNET. Something about "I have no freakin' idea what you are talking about, so here's a picture of a hamster with a pancake on his head."
I remember similar references, and after a quick search this popped up http://www.fsinet.or.jp/~sokaisha/rabbit/rabbit.htm
Someone really likes rabbits! If you don't have the language pack, just click canel on the prompts and follow the English links to view the rather bizarre/obsessive photos of said rabbit.
I remember something like that from SOCNET. Something about "I have no freakin' idea what you are talking about, so here's a picture of a hamster with a pancake on his head."
Here is that famous bunny in all it's glory. :lifter
Airbornelawyer
04-01-2005, 09:57
I retired the late Johnny Cochran and the Chewbacca Defense, and had no idea which way to go.
Following on unfrozen caveman lawyer, and RL's homages to James Madison and Jackie Chiles, famous lawyers could be a theme, but I was stuck between Wade Blasingame ("I've sued over 2,000 canines, and I'm willing to do it for you!") and William Blackstone ("Liberties more generally talked of, than thoroughly underftood ; and yet highly neceffary to be perfectly known and confidered by every man of rank or property, left his ignorance of the points whereon it is founded fhould hurry him into faction and licentioufnefs on the one hand, or a pufillanimous indifference and criminal fubmiffion on the other.").
So I went with the bunny.
What really bothers me is that the root of his being in the library is known, but why squirrel away classified documents?
Possible damaging evidence that the Clinton regime was negligent in countering terrorism? I still believe that Sandy was prepping some kind of damage control to counter the 911 commision or at least absolve the Clinton administration and remind people that we legally went after and prosecuted terrorists.
I'd say that Desert Fox was a mistake and only reminded UBL that we we were going to hammer his ass.
I do agree that the probe may have been leaked to boost the Republican agenda. It's politically driven but still a F%ck Up on Sandy's part. :mad:
He'll probably get the typical commuted sentence due to his public service, etc.
I do love the elaborate tap dances politicians give when faced with very direct questions. It's kinda like watching someone that has just realized Montezuma's revenge is about to establish a foothold. Sweatiness, darting eyes, trembling lips.... more fun to watch than detainees in the booth.
NousDefionsDoc
04-01-2005, 10:19
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050401/D896CBQ80.html
Mar 31, 10:54 PM (ET)
By MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified documents from the National Archives, the Justice Department said Thursday.
Berger, who served in the Clinton administration, will enter the plea Friday in U.S. District Court in Washington, said Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra.
The plea agreement, if accepted by a judge, ends a bizarre episode in which the man who once had access to the government's most sensitive intelligence was accused of sneaking documents out of the Archives in his clothing.
The Bush administration disclosed the investigation days before the Sept. 11 commission issued its final report. Democrats claimed the White House was using Berger to deflect attention from the harsh report, with its potential for damaging Bush's re-election prospects.
Berger previously acknowledged he removed from the National Archives copies of documents about the government's anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents.
He said he was reviewing the materials to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. He called the episode "an honest mistake," and denied criminal wrongdoing.
Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, have said Berger knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants and he inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.
He returned most of the documents, but still missing are some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration.
"Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near," Breuer said Thursday.
The charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.
However, a federal law enforcement official said a plea agreement calls for Berger to serve no jail time but to pay a $10,000 fine, surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the pending court proceeding. A judge must approve the agreement.
Security clearance allows access to classified government materials.
The Associated Press first reported in July that the Justice Department was investigating Berger for incidents at the Archives the previous fall. The disclosure prompted Berger to step down as an adviser to the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
Former President Clinton was among Democrats who questioned the timing of the disclosure of the Berger probe, three days before the release of the final Sept. 11 commission report. The commission, writing just three months before the 2004 presidential election, detailed failures of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
Leaders of the Sept. 11 commission said they were able to get every key document needed to complete their report.
Let a private do something like this and try to get his clearance back.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050401/D896CBQ80.html
However, a federal law enforcement official said a plea agreement calls for Berger to serve no jail time but to pay a $10,000 fine, surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the pending court proceeding. A judge must approve the agreement.
Let a private do something like this and try to get his clearance back.
I'll agree that PVT Snuffy would be the new poster child.
I don't understand the wording of "surrender his security clearance for three years..."
It's priviledge, not a right and therefore should be taken away from him without consideration of granting him another.
Some poor investigator down the road will get this case and have to make a career decision, not Sandy's, his. :mad:
Sweetbriar
04-01-2005, 11:01
Documents he was known to have taken are still missing. If he can't bring them back, then no restoration of his clearance. IMO.
rubberneck
04-01-2005, 11:41
"erstwhile" means "former"; I assume you meant presumptive or something along those lines.
Thank you. If I am going to correct others I might as well accept being corrected. :p
However, a federal law enforcement official said a plea agreement calls for Berger to serve no jail time but to pay a $10,000 fine, [U]surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the pending court proceeding. A judge must approve the agreement.
What garbage. We can always hope the judge actually owns a pair when it comes time for his decision.
Thank you. If I am going to correct others I might as well accept being corrected.
maybe you are looking for ersatz?
NousDefionsDoc
04-01-2005, 12:28
Thank you. If I am going to correct others I might as well accept being corrected. :p
I edited your comment by mistake, I was attempting to edit one of mine and was in the wrong post. Sorry.
I edited your comment by mistake, I was attempting to edit one of mine and was in the wrong post. Sorry.
So you mean, that Medics and Adimins DO make mistakes from time to time. :eek:
Radar Rider
04-01-2005, 13:08
Aside from the overall BS of the entire situation, I'm especially perturbed (to put it mildly) about the clearance issue. If I or anyone I work with removed classified documents from our work area, we'd be looking at jail time, and no more clearance EVER. Freakin' berger. :mad:
So you mean, that Medics and Adimins DO make mistakes from time to time. :eek:
you tend to run high on the balls-to-brain-weight ratio, don't you? :D
rubberneck
04-01-2005, 13:23
I edited your comment by mistake, I was attempting to edit one of mine and was in the wrong post. Sorry.
I am just happy that I have avoided the dreaded avitar. If you hadn't told me I would have never known that you edited my psot.
NousDefionsDoc
04-01-2005, 13:38
you tend to run high on the balls-to-brain-weight ratio, don't you? :D
He already has a new title and sig line. He must want a new avatar for the trifecta.
He already has a new title and sig line. He must want a new avatar for the trifecta.
so this is how medics update GG shots in cyberspace... :eek:
Documents he was known to have taken are still missing. If he can't bring them back, then no restoration of his clearance. IMO.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html
The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.
Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.
Radar Rider
04-01-2005, 15:38
so this is how medics update GG shots in cyberspace... :eek:
Yicchh! What does an electronic frozen shot in the buttocks feel like? :confused:
Yicchh! What does an electronic frozen shot in the buttocks feel like?
dunno, but you wind up with a weird tag line and signature...
Team Sergeant
04-02-2005, 12:27
Even more on slimball sandy berger
FORWARDED BY VETS4BUSH.COM
A statement well said and worth reading.
------------------------------------------------------
From: "DAVID BARTH, CFA"
Subject: Sandy Berger's Slap on Wrist
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:55:30 -0500
Sandy Berger, an advisor to the Kerry campaign as well Clinton's National Security Advisor, has ADMITTED that he stole and destroyed documents from the National Archives that were after-action reports critical of Clinton's handling of the planned attack by bin Laden and Al Queda in 1999. He stole and destroyed these government documents so that they would not be turned over to the September 11 Commission. These documents have shown that the Clinton Administration not only knew of proposed terrorists attacks on the U.S. but hid this information from the public and did nothing to go after the terrorists except leave a note to George Bush that there were terrorists planning to attack the U.S. Like everything else Bill Clinton has done in his life, with the help of a fawning media, he sweeps the real work of governing under the rug like a P.R. flack and leaves the heavy lifting to the next guy. Fortunately, this next guy disregards the media suck-ups and does the job with li! ttle appreciation from these same suck-ups.
Why does Berger only get probation for stealing and destroying sensitive government documents for purely political purposes? And why hasn't the media exposed this egregious disregard by the Clinton Administration for the public's safety and tell the story? Where is the media outrage such as undoubtedly would have been leveled against George Bush. Do they, the media, wonder why they have the credibility of used car salesmen - I apologize to used car salesman to put them in the same low-class. I respect factual criticism, especially constructive criticism, of all and, especially anyone who purposely and strenuously becomes a public figure. But I have no respect for journalists and their management who, through a plethora of devious means, censor the news for their own, profitable agenda. Ironically, it is these elitist journalist who scream the First Amendment who want to silence bloggers because they may have an agenda.
Please, somebody, give this story the unbiased, factual attention it deserves. I saw a small reference to this in our local (Palm Beach) press and no editorial comment. Yes, it will hurt Hillary's aspirations to the throne but that is her problem, one she deservedly should have.
David Barth, CFA
Jupiter, Florida
I'm continually suprised at the free passes clinton receives from the media. There are a ton of ex clinton folks who have spent time in prison etc. yet he is apparently coated in teflon. I guess they don't want to taint hillary.
He should never ever get his clearance back.
Never.
Doc
He should never ever get his clearance back.
i say we give him his clearance back right after we hang him...just lettin' my COO side show through, i guess...
Agreed!!
Thing is.......... What did he insert into the archives?
The Reaper
04-05-2005, 07:29
I'd give him a CONFIDENTIAL tomorrow.
Right after he told everything he knows about the Klinton White House.
TR
I'd give him a CONFIDENTIAL tomorrow.
Right after he told everything he knows about the Klinton White House.
THEN we hang him...good idea...
Airbornelawyer
04-05-2005, 09:49
Far worse than the middling punishment meted out to Berger is the fact that many, especially the media (which never showed much interest in the story anyway), seem to treat this as the end of the story.
It is as if G. Gordon Liddy had pled guilty to misdemeanor destruction of property (a hotel door lock, etc.) and Watergate ended there.
Note that I am not necessarily comparing this Bergerlary to Watergate, just that the scandal started with the burglary, but became a major political issue because of why it was done, not what was done.
We still do not know why, but the questions asked when the story first came out have only become more important now that we know details.
We now know that he took all of the "copies" of the document (itself a crime) back to his own office, reviewed them, destroyed three and returned the other two.
I put "copies" in quotation marks because while that is the term bandied about, with the implication that nothing original was destroyed, that does not appear to be the case (though reports differ). It appears that one of two scenarios played out:
1. This was the final report and the documents at issue were five copies of that report. If they were identical copies, destroying three while returning two would be something of a non-issue (though technically still a crime). However, if they were identical copies, the document destruction simply makes no sense. Instead, some reports indicate that each copy was different, reflecting handwritten marginalia inserted by various persons who reviewed the document.
If that is the case, then each copy was different, and the issue is what was written in those margins? Who made comments and what were they? Did various parties dispute various conclusions in the reports? Did President Clinton doodle pictures of El Caminos and buxom brunettes in the margins? Did Janet Reno doodle pictures of k.d. lang?
More seriously, was there something in the marginalia that would embarrass the Clinton Administration or certain officials, or call into question the report's content? Did Berger destroy those copies to cover up that information?
2. This was not the final report and these were interim drafts. Some reports have described them as drafts which, working their way through the interagency system, received the comments of various parties. If so, calling them "copies" is not quite accurate. If they are identical interim drafts, but with handwritten comments of various reviewers, the situation is similar to (1) above, except for the added twist that none of them was the final report. If not, and as other media accounts have described them, they were different interim draft versions of the report, then they were not "copies"; they were "drafts" or "versions" which presumably differed from each other.
The question then becomes how did they differ? Was there significant strengthening or softening of various conclusions? Was there changes to spin otherwise straightforward information in such a way as to make the Administration's efforts look better? Did someone just misspell a lot of words or fail to use defined terms in a clear and consistent manner? In other words, the same question: did Berger destroy documents to protect the Clinton Administration or certain officials from embarrassment or from uncomfortable attention to its counterterrorism efforts?
We may never know.
Detonics
04-09-2005, 09:51
I sure hate to see the lack of support for our current President. Just because of:
His not releasing the final findings on the Klinton investigation
His gushing praise for Klinton at the "Presidential portrait unveiling" ceremony (The portrait I want of Slick Willie is a full face and left profile in a nice orange federal jumpsuit)
His having that bastardly disgrace of a former President fly around with his daddy as a representative of the United States.
His letting Vincente Fox make him his bitch.
His appointment of an anti-2nd ammendment Attorney General.
His support of the U.N. and Kofi Annan in the face of absolute evidence of corruption, to further his globalist agenda.
Doesn't mean he's not doing a crackerjack job!
"All Hail, President Hillary Rodham-Klinton and Secretary-General William Jefferson Klinton"